lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 03/17] powerpc: Add PFO support to the VIO bus
From
Date
Hrm... I don't like that much:

> + if (op->timeout)
> + deadline = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(op->timeout);
> +
> + while (true) {
> + hret = plpar_hcall_norets(H_COP, op->flags,
> + vdev->resource_id,
> + op->in, op->inlen, op->out,
> + op->outlen, op->csbcpb);
> +
> + if (hret == H_SUCCESS ||
> + (hret != H_NOT_ENOUGH_RESOURCES &&
> + hret != H_BUSY && hret != H_RESOURCE) ||
> + (op->timeout && time_after(deadline, jiffies)))
> + break;
> +
> + dev_dbg(dev, "%s: hcall ret(%ld), retrying.\n", __func__, hret);
> + }
> +

Is this meant to be called in atomic context ? If not, maybe it should
at the very least do a cond_resched() ?

Else, what about ceding the processor ? Or at the very least reducing
the thread priority for a bit ?

Shouldn't we also enforce to always have a timeout ? IE. Something like
30s or so if nothing specified to avoid having the kernel just hard
lock...

In general I don't like that sort of synchronous code, I'd rather return
the busy status up the chain which gives a chance to the caller to take
more appropriate measures depending on what it's doing, but that really
depends what you use that synchronous call for. I suppose if it's for
configuration type operations, it's ok...

Cheers,
Ben.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-01 05:21    [W:0.207 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site